Tools (wearable and non-wearable) for measuring exposure to biomechanical factors: main applications that can be integrated into or are complementary to evaluation methods

E. Sala | Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences, and Public Health, Occupational Medicine and Industrial Hygiene Unit, University of Brescia, Italy

Introduction. The assessment of the risk of biomechanical overload on the musculoskeletal system is traditionally conducted using observational methods, whose accuracy is frequently compromised by high inter- and intra-observer variability.¹ Recent studies highlight less than 50% agreement among expert evaluators, emphasizing the need for objective tools for quantifying biomechanical risk.² Wearable technologies, such as inertial sensors (IMUs), surface electromyography (sEMG), and load detection systems, offer real-time quantitative measurements, potentially improving the validity and reproducibility of biomechanical overload risk assessments.³

Objectives. Analyze the applicability and integration of wearable technologies and digital systems in biomechanical risk assessment across different industrial sectors, comparing them with conventional observational methods.

Methods. Optoelectronic systems, IMUs, load cells, augmented reality headsets, and sEMG were employed in simulated environments and real occupational contexts such as waste collection, steel industry, transportation, logistics, healthcare, and metalworking. The quantitative data collected were compared with assessments conducted using observational methods to evaluate their consistency, reliability, and potential for integration.

Results and Conclusions. The implementation of advanced digital technologies has enabled the objective and high-temporal-resolution quantification of the main biomechanical determinants, particularly muscle strength and joint kinematics, complex parameters to estimate using qualitative methods. The data collected from the various industrial sectors under evaluation were normalized against exposure limits proposed by the main traditional risk assessment methods described in the international literature. Innovative instrumental technologies have provided reproducible measurements that are less susceptible to subjective bias. However, their full effectiveness is conditional on integration with assessments conducted by expert ergonomists, which are necessary to contextualize the measurements, evaluate the quality and correctness of task execution, identify incorrect operating methods, and analyze factors in the work environment that cannot be detected instrumentally.³ The multidimensional paradigm that integrates quantitative data with the assessments of an ergonomic expert represents a methodological advancement over traditional observational methods, promoting more effective and personalized ergonomic designs.